If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. To contact the administrator / webmaster : click here!

The Globe also reports Romney's financial disclosure forms filed in Massachusetts list him as the sole owner of Bain Capital in 2002 and say he earned money as a Bain "executive" in 2001 and 2002.

[Related: Obama is the 'outsourcer in chief,' says Romney]

The timing is notable because Romney has said his resignation from the company in 1999 meant he was not responsible for companies owned by Bain that went bankrupt or laid off workers after that date. But both Bain Capital and the Romney campaign disputed the story, the latter describing the article as "inaccurate."

I love how they claim the official documents are wrong and that he did quit in 1999. Even though official documents prove he was SOLE OWNER in 2002.

Mitt is trying to hide his wealth, religion, Mexican heritage, record as governor, and draft avoidance. And he is the best candidate the GOP can come up with!!!!

Non Alcoholic Beer is like a Vibrator without batteries. Fills you up but without the buzz.

The Obama campaign complains that we got a key fact wrong in our June 29 article, “Obama’s ‘Outsourcer’ Overreach.” We strongly disagree. We find the Obama campaign’s evidence to be weak or non-existent, and contrary to statements Romney has made on official disclosure forms under pain of federal prosecution.

The Obama complaint claims we erred in saying Mitt Romney gave up active management of Bain Capital in early 1999 to run the 2002 Winter Olympics, insisting we were then wrong in saying Romney was not responsible for shipping U.S. jobs overseas.

In fact, if the Obama campaign were correct, Romney would be guilty of a federal felony by certifying on federal financial disclosure forms that he left active management of Bain Capital in February 1999.

And after reviewing evidence cited by the Obama campaign, we reaffirm our conclusion that Romney left the helm of Bain Capital when he took a leave of absence in 1999 to run the Salt Lake City Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics – as he has said repeatedly — and never returned to active management. The Obama campaign’s recent ads thus mislead when they point to investments made by Bain, as well as management decisions made by companies in which Bain invested, after that time.

The Obama campaign’s objections are contained in a six-page letter sent to us (and — without notice to us — to other news organizations as well). It cobbles together selective news snippets and irrelevant securities documents in an attempt to show that Romney was still running Bain Capital on a part-time basis while he was also running the Olympics committee.

Except as documents prove he was sole owner of Bain until 2002. Have fun with FACTS Jena. HIS Documents state, and I quote "Massachusetts list him as the sole owner of Bain Capital in 2002 and say he earned money as a Bain "executive" in 2001 and 2002."

Hmm, if he was listed as sole owner in 2002, as documents PROVE, and was making money from it then how did he quit again? Of course since Jena still believes Obama's BC was fake becuase it doesn't say he was born in Kenya... No wonder she won't believe MORE documents that go against what Fox says.

Non Alcoholic Beer is like a Vibrator without batteries. Fills you up but without the buzz.

Except as documents prove he was sole owner of Bain until 2002. Have fun with FACTS Jena. HIS Documents state, and I quote "Massachusetts list him as the sole owner of Bain Capital in 2002 and say he earned money as a Bain "executive" in 2001 and 2002."

Hmm, if he was listed as sole owner in 2002, as documents PROVE, and was making money from it then how did he quit again? Of course since Jena still believes Obama's BC was fake becuase it doesn't say he was born in Kenya... No wonder she won't believe MORE documents that go against what Fox says.

Well if that's true then this campaign is a wrap.... A felon cant be president of the United States of America.

Be Impeccable with Your Word
Don't Take Anything Personally
Don't Make Assumptions
Always Do Your Best

Today's bombshell report by the Boston Globe that Mitt Romney may have remained in charge of Bain Capital for three years after he claimed to have left has the potential to destroy Romney's credibility.

The issue boils down to statements that, at first glance, appear to directly contradict one another:

According to statements Bain filed with the SEC, Romney was the "chairman, CEO, and president" of Bain from 1999-2002.

According to Romney, Romney left Bain in 1999 and had "no input on investments or management of companies after that point."

Beyond determining whether these statements are accurate--or whether Bain misled the SEC or Romney has been misleading the public--the reason this issue is important is that Romney wants to disavow responsibility for anything Bain or Bain companies did after early 1999.

And one of the things that Bain did after early 1999, as Dan Primack of Fortune points out, is invest in a company called Stericycle whose services included the disposal of aborted fetuses.

For obvious reasons, an investment in a company that performed this service might hurt Romney's standing with the right-to-life voters in the Republican party, even though Romney was pro-choice at the time the investment was made.

And Romney also wants to disavow responsibility for many layoffs that Bain engineered after 1999, an issue he has had to deal with since running for Governor.

When the statements above are examined closely, however, it becomes clear that the Romney campaign may be treading a very fine rhetorical line here--one that it believes might allow Romney to dodge both bullets (the accuracy of his public statements and Bain's decisions).
...

As "Chairman, CEO, and President" of Bain, he damn well would have remained responsible for these decisions. In which case, saying he had "left" and implying that he had no involvement or responsibility whatsoever is highly misleading.

The CEO of a car company may not have input into the decision of what specific cars the company makes or where it makes them (though he or she obviously could if s/he wanted). But this CEO is unequivocally responsible for these decisions.

Similarly, if Romney was CEO of Bain at the time it made the Stericycle decision, as well as the company layoffs and other unpleasant facts that Candidate Romney would like to disown, he certainly was responsible for these decisions.

I wish I could get paid $100,000.00, per year, for not doing a job for which I have no responsibility...but then also get to keep the prestigious business title -- CEO, owner, sole stockholder (more income) and president.

"...simply saying you were not in charge of Bain after 1999 would not be a felony. But if you are still technically the owner, do you not have responsibility for the decisions of your own company? And why was he paid $100,000 a year for it, as the Globe asserts? Meanwhile, another story about his business past is now percolating:

According to government documents reviewed by Mother Jones, Romney, when he was in charge of Bain, invested heavily in a Chinese manufacturing company that depended on US outsourcing for its profits—and that explicitly stated that such outsourcing was crucial to its success.

Today's bombshell report by the Boston Globe that Mitt Romney may have remained in charge of Bain Capital for three years after he claimed to have left has the potential to destroy Romney's credibility.

These people, all of them, are nothing but disgusting well to do thugs of low moral character and little to no integrity. They would destroy Gods credibility as they maul and claw at each other on their way to the top of the heap if they thought it would be in their best interests to do so. Puke on them all. What they do have is endless stores of audacity and absolutely no sense of self shame.

She had no problem accepting his Secretary of State offer after she lost her own bid. Oh my....and tooo think - she went to work herself for the outright, untrustworthy and decietful liar?

ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.

Galadriel: "I amar prestar aen. Han mathon ne nen. Han mathon ne chae. A han noston ne 'wilith. "Translation: "The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air."

"And one of the things that Bain did after early 1999, as Dan Primack of Fortune points out, is invest in a company called Stericycle whose services included the disposal of aborted fetuses.

For obvious reasons, an investment in a company that performed this service might hurt Romney's standing with the right-to-life voters in the Republican party, even though Romney was pro-choice at the time the investment was made."

When his constituency is comprised largely of far right-wing religious people who use abortion as a major party platform, I'm very interested in seeing how the politicians who get millions from them, use such religio-moralistic tripe for nothing more than a campaign agenda, with nothing solid or real behind their "moral" fakery. But as a platform for moral outrage only when it benefits them. And not only when it simply benefits them rhetorically, but issues from which they make enormous profits as well -- on such things as aborted fetuses. That's just mind-numbing.

Those are not the kind of outright liars that reassure me as leaders of a world superpower. I'm very pleased that Obama's campaign caught that.

Obama showed incredible grace and magnanimity in hiring Hillary -- knowing that she was very highly qualified for the job -- after she was his fierce political opponent. That speaks volumes to me as well.

"The article is not accurate. As Bain Capital has said, as Governor Romney has said, and as has been confirmed by independent fact checkers multiple times, Governor Romney left Bain Capital in February of 1999 to run the Olympics and had no input on investments or management of companies after that point."

Obviously I was concerned about it and went looking. That's when I read the entire FACTCHECK.ORG website on anything related to accusations made by the left in regard to Romney. As it turns out - Romney did not do the things that the left/Obama is accusing him of.

Are you now against the real scum?

**edit - and regarding the Boston Globe article of July 11th here is more from FACTCHECK.ORG dated July 12th

"Since then some other reporters have weighed in on Obama’s side. Articles in Mother Jones magazine and the Talking Points Memo website, and most recently a front-page Boston Globe story on July 12, all cite documents filed by Bain with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The TPM piece noted that in documents from July 2000 and February 2001 Romney listed his “principal occupation” as “Managing Director” of Bain, for example. And the Globe story reported that Bain repeatedly listed him on government filings as the man in charge.

On a media conference call about the Globe story, Stephanie Cutter, Obama’s deputy campaign manager, said the story proves that Romney had “full control” of Bain during this time and “therefore directly responsible” for decisions made at companies in which Bain invested. “Either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature, was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony. Or he was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investments,” Cutter said.

But we see little new in any of these SEC filings, and a University of Pennsylvania Law School professor we spoke to sees no basis for the Obama campaign’s claim that Romney committed a felony.

None of the SEC filings show that Romney was anything but a passive, absentee owner during that time, as both Romney and Bain have long said. It should not surprise anyone that Romney retained certain titles while he was working out the final disposition of his ownership, for example. We see nothing to contradict the statement that a Bain spokesman issued in response to the Globe article:"

"We looked at BLS figures for each year of Romney’s tenure. (This is tricky business. State rankings can shift depending on which start and stop dates one selects. We looked at January to January, seasonally adjusted figures to coincide most closely to when Romney took office Jan. 2, 2003 and left office Jan. 4, 2007). In the 12 months before he took office, the state ranked 50th in job creation, and for his first 12 months in office, that remained 50th. But by his final year the state ranked 28th. That’s still mediocre, but an improvement, and not a decline, as the ad would lead viewers to believe.

It’s a point made by Romney backers — including campaign spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom on ABC’s “This Week” on June 3., and senior adviser Ed Gillespie on “Fox News Sunday” the same day. But they exaggerate slightly by comparing Romney’s first year to his last, and by saying he went from 50th to 30th. But that would absolve Romney of all responsibility for job creation in his first year, a concession Republicans never grant to Obama.

The year before Romney took office, employment in Massachusetts fell by 1.84 percent. That put it in 50th, dead last. Massachusetts remained 50th in Romney’s first year, but the ranking steadily improved year by year. In Romney’s last year in office, the state saw a 1.32 percent increase in jobs, ranking Massachusetts 28th. Again, those are one-year snapshots as opposed to the cumulative four-year number.

Our fact-checking colleagues at the Washington Post put together a chart comparing the jobs records of Obama, as president, and Romney, as Massachusetts governor, at similar points in their terms of office. Ironically, what the chart shows is a fairly similar trajectory under both men."

"However, Obama’s $787-billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funneled millions of federal dollars to companies that shipped American jobs overseas. Take, for example, North Carolina-based LED manufacturer Cree Inc., which reaped $39 million through a stimulus-funded tax credit program in January 2010. In November 2009, the company built a manufacturing plant in Huizhou City, China, which is the harbor for more than half of the company’s employees.

While Cree is a U.S.-based company, chairman and CEO Chuck Swoboda says that “Cree management never runs this company as a U.S. company. We consider Cree to be a global company with local wisdoms.” And the firm’s plans to further expand into foreign countries are only just beginning, asserts Swoboda. “We will continue to invest here for both human talent and the most state-of-the-art technologies,” he said, adding, “We have committed that in the coming 3-5 years, we will continue to expand our operation in Huizhou.”

Another foreign investment scheme spurred on by Obama’s stimulus law involves Japanese wind energy firm Eurus Energy, whose American subsidiary, Eurus Energy America, collected $91 million in stimulus funding to initiate construction of a wind farm in Texas. As it turns out, the wind farm was allegedly built using turbines manufactured by Mitsubishi — another Japanese company.

“Eurus Energy America, the U.S. subsidiary of a Japanese firm, received $91 million in stimulus money for its Bull Creek wind farm in Texas,” cited a 2010 report by American University. “The farm consists of 180 Mitsubishi turbines.”

Furthermore, the Energy Department’s insatiable appetite for “green” investments has become a chief stimulant to job creation in foreign countries. Solar power firm Sempra Energy, for example, was awarded a whopping $337-million loan guarantee to supply panels for a solar power array in Arizona. However, while Sempra is based in California, the company purchased its solar panels from the Chinese solar giant Suntech.

Perhaps the most damning paragon of the Obama administration’s subsidization of foreign companies involves a $500-million loan guarantee siphoned to Finnish automaker Fisker Automotive. A component of the Energy Department’s alternative-fuel vehicle program, the loan was intended to bolster Fisker’s presence in the U.S. manufacturing market. However, claiming it was unable to find a viable location in the United States, Fisker never built a domestic facility, deciding instead to cease its U.S. operations and continue building vehicles in Finland.

“There was no contract manufacturer in the U.S. that could actually produce our vehicle,” founder Henrik Fisker told ABC News. “They don’t exist here.” Fisker said Finland was a more efficient and economical place to carry out his operations. "We're not in the business of failing; we're in the business of winning. So we make the right decision for the business," he affirmed. "That's why we went to Finland."

“There was no contract manufacturer in the U.S. that could actually produce our vehicle,” founder Henrik Fisker told ABC News. “They don’t exist here.” Fisker said Finland was a more efficient and economical place to carry out his operations. "We're not in the business of failing; we're in the business of winning. So we make the right decision for the business," he affirmed. "That's why we went to Finland."

It would have been nice if that money actually stayed here and created jobs but sadly it was given to corporations who Imagine that looked after their share holders first. Of course that would never have happened under a Romney administration!!!

Also its Bush and Obama's American Recovery act.. sorry if that makes you feel bad.

I can be against Obama and more against Romney...... I can even be against Obama and vote for him because the alternative is unthinkable........... Lucky for us my vote wont count anyway. My state is to small to matter and will very likely vote for Obama anyway.

Be Impeccable with Your Word
Don't Take Anything Personally
Don't Make Assumptions
Always Do Your Best

Also its Bush and Obama's American Recovery act.. sorry if that makes you feel bad.

Why would that make me feel bad? I could not stand Bush. I was against the stimulus under Bush as well.

Originally Posted by MaximumPain

I can be against Obama and more against Romney...... I can even be against Obama and vote for him because the alternative is unthinkable........... Lucky for us my vote wont count anyway. My state is to small to matter and will very likely vote for Obama anyway.

Oh but I can't be against Romney and more against Obama. I can't even be against Romney and vote for him because the alternative is unthinkable????

You guys crack me up. If YOU vote for the lessor of two evils, it's ok. If someone else votes for another lessor of two evils - they are idiots. I get it MP.